Aligning text to spine, in non-facing pages document?

[Valter Viglietti - Frame Studio]

Today I've stumbled on something I could not find a solution for - and maybe
it doesn't even exist.
But if there's a way, I know there's someone here who knows it. :-)

I'm working on several daily diary documents, built with non-facing pages
(for some reason about margins and bleed).
On a new design, I find there's lots of mirrored text elements, i.e. they
have to be left aligned on the left pages, and right aligned on the right
pages.
I set the "Align Away From Spine" in the paragraph style, but it doesn't
work: the text stay right aligned on both left and right pages. :-(
Reading the help and the Net, looks like aligning to spine only works with
facing pages...

And here's my question: is there a way to make the "Align Away From Spine"
feature work in a non-facing pages document?

(without that feature, I'll have to manually align several text elements on
over 180 pages :-((( )

[John Jason Jordan]

On Fri, 10 May 2013 06:55:36 +0200
Valter Viglietti - Frame Studio <frame....@fastwebnet.it> dijo:

>On a new design, I find there's lots of mirrored text elements, i.e.
>they have to be left aligned on the left pages, and right aligned on
>the right pages.

Can you place the graphics on master pages, the left ones on a left
master page and the right ones on a right master page?

[Valter Viglietti - Frame Studio]

Il giorno 10/05/13 07.05, "John Jason Jordan" ha scritto:

>> On a new design, I find there's lots of mirrored text elements, i.e.
>> they have to be left aligned on the left pages, and right aligned on
>> the right pages.
>
> Can you place the graphics on master pages, the left ones on a left
> master page and the right ones on a right master page?

Of course I did place all text frames on Master pages.
Problem is, being the document a non-facing-pages one, I can't define (at
Master pages level) a page being left or right.

In the actual document, pages are left or right depending on page number;
but that doesn't change the "Align to spine" behaviour.

[Evans, Rebecca]

The reason to use non-facing pages when there is an inside bleed
specified, is to prevent the inside bleed from grabbing a vertical strip
of the facing page in a pdf. This does not happen when you print, just
when you export to pdf.

If nothing on your pages gets as close to the gutter as the width of the
inside bleed, then just make your document facing pages. (If your inside
bleed is 3mm and everything on the page is at least 3mm away from the
gutter, for instance.)

If you do have bleeds that butt to the gutter, it probably will be less
work to change the document to facing pages so the Align to Spine behavior
works, then uncheck "Allow facing pages to shuffle" in the pages panel
flyout menu, and pull the spreads apart in the page panel. Pull one page
of a spread until you see a vertical line between the spread's page
thumbnails, and then let go. (If you see a tall square bracket instead of
a vertical line, that means ID thinks you want to snap the two pages
together.)

Your pages will retain their right and left identity even though they are
pulled apart. You don't have to do this to every spread, only the ones
that have color or an image that touches the gutter.

Rebecca




On 5/10/13 1:40 AM, "Valter Viglietti - Frame Studio"

>--
>You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>"InDesign talk" group.
>To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
>email to indesign-tal...@googlegroups.com.
>To post to this group, send email to indesi...@googlegroups.com.
>Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/indesign-talk?hl=en.
>For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>
>

[Valter Viglietti - Frame Studio]

Il giorno 10/05/13 14.23, "Evans, Rebecca" ha scritto:

> The reason to use non-facing pages when there is an inside bleed
> specified, is to prevent the inside bleed from grabbing a vertical strip
> of the facing page in a pdf.

I've been told from the original designer who created these documents (I
"inherited" this job from her), that non-facing pages were chosen to allow
the printer to change the inner margins when using different bindings
(e.g. larger margin when using Wire-O spiral binding).

As far as I understood, "single" pages allowed the printer to more easily
manipulate the PDF's pages.

> If you do have bleeds that butt to the gutter, it probably will be less
> work to change the document to facing pages

Since it's the first time I'm working on this job, I do not feel comfortable
about changing the documents' setup.
I'm afraid I could look like the newcomer who thinks he knows better. :-)

Besides, if anything goes wrong because of this change, I would be screwed
up (this is an expensive printing run) and, most likely, I would lose the
client.

> uncheck "Allow facing pages to shuffle" in the pages panel
> flyout menu, and pull the spreads apart in the page panel.

I tried it, and it did work (of course :-).
Whoopee! :-D

But I'm still afraid that the final PDF output could be, in any way,
different because of this different setup.
Right now (after the change) the pages lives independently from each other
(not as spreads), just like before; thus the PDF output shouldn't be any
different, I presume.
Would the printer tell the difference (if any)?
What do you think about it?

(I know, I'm 50 and I still need reassurance - oh boy! ;-)

[Bret Perry]

If it's a PDF workflow and all the printer sees are PDFs, and
IF you "separated" ALL the spreads so none are touching at the gutter,
I don't think there will be any difference in the PDF at all.

If you only separate those spreads that have bleeds that butt to gutter
(or are closer to gutter than your bleed size), then
If your final PDF is to Bleed only and doesn't include Slug, there would
be no difference unless some items on facing page ARE in the gutter bleed
area.

If your final PDF is to slug (beyond bleed)

Then on the non-separated spreads, you might see some items past the bleed
that you otherwise wouldn't, but they won't print (or will be trimmed off)

I have worked with printers who want only PDF to .125 bleed and some who
want PDF 1/2" or 1" so crops and slugs are visible, depending on how their
imposing software works.


On 5/10/13 12:42 PM, "Valter Viglietti - Frame Studio"

-----------------------------
The information in this email is confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended solely for the addressee. Access to this email by anyone else is unauthorized. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution, or any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on it, is prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this email in error, please notify us immediately by calling the Help Desk at 866-682-8852.
-----------------------------

[Valter Viglietti - Frame Studio]

Il giorno 10/05/13 22.06, "Bret Perry" ha scritto:

> If it's a PDF workflow and all the printer sees are PDFs

Yes.

> and IF you "separated" ALL the spreads so none are touching at the gutter

I will do that.

> I don't think there will be any difference in the PDF at all.

Thanks you, it's reassuring.

I found something baffling though.
I created 3 PDFs for testing this solution: 1 regular spreads (facing
pages), 1 non-facing pages, 1 with this solution (starting with non-facing
pages, converting to facing, pages separated into non-spreads).
When I opened the PDFs in Acrobat Reader to see any difference amongst them,
I found none. :-o
Looking at a "spread" (left and right pages), I see no difference at all
amongst the 3 PDFs. They all have the same bleed.

On one hand, it seems there's no problem.
OTOH, I'm afraid I'm missing some difference, that the printer might stumble
upon. :-/

I'm probably overthinking this... :-)
but before creating and sending a 400 pages document, I'd rather be safe
than sorry. ;-)

[Evans, Rebecca]

If your bleed stayed the same for all three sets, there wouldn't be any
difference in the three pdfs.

I'm not sure how non-facing single pages helps the printer change the
gutter area for different bindings, as you were told. A gutter only exists
when pages are combined into a spread. You would not be able to adjust the
inside margins because there would be no inside margins or left and right
pages.

As Bret said, the printer can use their imposition software to adjust the
position of the pages as needed to allow for different bindings. There
would be no need to go back to InDesign and change the width of the
margins. (Thank goodness, that never works well.)

Also as Bret said, the vertical strip of a facing page that inside bleed
grabs and embeds in a pdf of the facing page, will be trimmed off at the
print house,. Any retaining trace would be buried in the spine when the
book is bound. This could be a problem for a book with a lay-flat binding,
such as spiral bound, if it is not trimmed perfectly. It's been many years
since I've typeset a lay-flat book, or a book with thumb tabs, but we used
to set them up on an oversized page, drawing our own crop marks on the
page, and the printer used their imposition software to correctly position
the image area of the pages.

Rebecca





On 5/10/13 9:00 PM, "Valter Viglietti - Frame Studio"

[William Adams]

On May 13, 2013, at 9:13 AM, Evans, Rebecca wrote:

> If your bleed stayed the same for all three sets, there wouldn't be any
> difference in the three pdfs.
>
> I'm not sure how non-facing single pages helps the printer change the
> gutter area for different bindings, as you were told. A gutter only exists
> when pages are combined into a spread. You would not be able to adjust the
> inside margins because there would be no inside margins or left and right
> pages.
>
> As Bret said, the printer can use their imposition software to adjust the
> position of the pages as needed to allow for different bindings. There
> would be no need to go back to InDesign and change the width of the
> margins. (Thank goodness, that never works well.)
>
> Also as Bret said, the vertical strip of a facing page that inside bleed
> grabs and embeds in a pdf of the facing page, will be trimmed off at the
> print house,. Any retaining trace would be buried in the spine when the
> book is bound. This could be a problem for a book with a lay-flat binding,
> such as spiral bound, if it is not trimmed perfectly. It's been many years
> since I've typeset a lay-flat book, or a book with thumb tabs, but we used
> to set them up on an oversized page, drawing our own crop marks on the
> page, and the printer used their imposition software to correctly position
> the image area of the pages.

I'd give a lot to have a ``gutter'' area which could be used to allow facing pages to have slightly different horizontal placement of graphics which cross the bind.

One can fake it by turning off the spread shuffling and putting in a 3rd page in-between, but that's a pain (and requires one to deal w/ the ersatz page).

William

--
William Adams
senior graphic designer
Fry Communications
Sphinx of black quartz, judge my vow.

[Evans, Rebecca]

Me too, if you have a head with a tint bar behind it set up as a rule
behind the text that bleeds to the left, it is supposed to bleed off the
page on left pages and butt to the gutter on right pages. However, on
right pages, the tint bar "bleeds" onto the left pages.

Rebecca

[Sharon Villines]

How are people managing webfonts?

I've been importing them to FontExpress. The names are not different, however, so I've deleted some as duplicates. Grrrrr. This means whenever I try to delete duplicates, I have to examine the file names more carefully.

I'm thinking it would be easier to store webfonts separately since I wouldn't use them on my desktop anyway.

I'm also going to stop buying them because what are being sold as webfonts are not always optimized for the web. They take so long to download, I've had to delete them. Does anyone have a cure for this?

Sharon
----
Sharon Villines, Washington DC
"We are confronted with insurmountable opportunities." Walt Kelly

[Valter Viglietti - Frame Studio]

Il giorno 13/05/13 15.13, "Evans, Rebecca" ha scritto:

> If your bleed stayed the same for all three sets, there wouldn't be any
> difference in the three pdfs.

Yep, that's how it looks like.
There probably wasn't a problem, where I feared it to be.

> I'm not sure how non-facing single pages helps the printer change the
> gutter area for different bindings, as you were told.

Me neither.
It could be just an excess of caution by the original designer (I know for
sure she's the anxious type); or, maybe, the printer told her so and she
blindly followed.


Anyway, thank you very much to Rebecca and Bret for their help.
I've set up the whole document as you suggested, checked a PDF, and
everything seems fine.
And it spared me hours of boring manual changes. :-)))

This List is an invaluable resource, and you guys rock! :-D

[Bret Perry]

Hooray! Glad it worked out.

If you used facing pages spreads that touch, the bleed area in the gutter
will be items from the facing page.
IF your graphic on page 2 extends across the gutter, no issue.
But if a different graphic butts the gutter on each page, facing pages
touching spreads would show page 3 bleed on page 2:

e.g. If there was a red box on page 2 verso that bleeds into gutter and a
green box on page 3 recto that bleeds into gutter, Page 2 gutter would
contain the bleed of the green box from page 3 since that is what it
touching the gutter of page 2.

That works well for perfect binding since page 3 will bind touching page 2
and if page 2 trims incorrectly, showing a bit of page 3 would "match"
what faces it.

But for wire-bound "loose" pages, if you pull them apart, and pull the
gutter bleeds out, the bleed will only be red box bleeding off of page 2,
which for loose leaves is good since it will not "touch" page 3, you would
only want more of the page 2 red box in bleed.

Also, since a pulled-apart page 2 will not contain images from page 3,
page 2 will rip faster since it won't be ripping the photo on page 3 and
so on.



On 5/14/13 9:58 AM, "Valter Viglietti - Frame Studio"

[Valter Viglietti - Frame Studio]

Il giorno 14/05/13 20.20, "Bret Perry" ha scritto:

> Hooray! Glad it worked out.

Yes! I just sent the PDF proof to the client. Phew! :-D

> That works well for perfect binding since page 3 will bind touching page 2
> and if page 2 trims incorrectly, showing a bit of page 3 would "match"
> what faces it.
>
> But for wire-bound "loose" pages, if you pull them apart, and pull the
> gutter bleeds out, the bleed will only be red box bleeding off of page 2,
> which for loose leaves is good since it will not "touch" page 3, you would
> only want more of the page 2 red box in bleed.

Yes, I think you hit the nail on the head, and this time I think I got it.

Since these diaries can have both regular and wire binding, and there are
always graphics that bleed on every page, here's the need to have
"independent" pages and bleeds.
The original designer probably didn't know about "separating" facing pages
(as initially suggested by Rebecca), so she went with the non-facing pages
instead.

Of course she didn't ask in the right place and to the right people. :-D

[Sharon Villines]

On May 13, 2013, at 10:21 AM, Sharon Villines <sha...@sharonvillines.com> wrote:

> How are people managing webfonts?

No responses to managing webfonts -- are people buying them?

Sharon
----
Sharon Villines, Washington DC

"The most common way people give up their power is by thinking they don't have any..." Alice Walker

[William Adams]

On May 16, 2013, at 8:51 AM, Sharon Villines wrote:

> No responses to managing webfonts -- are people buying them?

If I understand what you're asking, I've been experimenting w/ making one, but having lots of technical issues.

[Evans, Rebecca]

Not yet (academic publisher). We use a SIL open source font family as the
first font choice in our our ePubs because it includes the language glyphs
our books might need.

Rebecca

[Sharon Villines]

On May 16, 2013, at 8:52 AM, William Adams <will....@frycomm.com> wrote:

> If I understand what you're asking, I've been experimenting w/ making one, but having lots of technical issues.

I bought the web versions/licenses for several because I wanted to create a distinct look for three websites, particularly for one that is a children's book printed in a typewriter font. But when I put that font on the website the download was impossible. From some it didn't download at all; others had to go for coffee while waiting.

I haven't checked the others yet or figured out if there is a way to optimize these. They are huge.

Now there are more and more fonts coming available free and they are very small in file size.

BUT the question was how people were storing and managing them. I use FontExplorer and they show in the fonts list as duplicates. Only Path shows that the file name is a number and a different suffix. In the list of fonts the icon is the same in both cases -- the icon for otf. Even when the actual file says ttf.

FontExplorer X/Font Library/S/Swissa Piccola/Jeremia Adatte - SwissaPiccola.otf
FontExplorer X/Font Library/S/SwissaPiccola/25F47A_0_0.ttf

So I've already deleted some not realizing what they were. I can download them again from my account at MyFonts but I have to find a better way to organize and keep track of what I have.

Sharon
----
Sharon Villines, Washington DC

Where all roads lead to Casablanca

[William Adams]

On May 16, 2013, at 1:38 PM, Sharon Villines wrote:

> I bought the web versions/licenses for several because I wanted to create a distinct look for three websites, particularly for one that is a children's book printed in a typewriter font. But when I put that font on the website the download was impossible. From some it didn't download at all; others had to go for coffee while waiting.
>
> I haven't checked the others yet or figured out if there is a way to optimize these. They are huge.
>
> Now there are more and more fonts coming available free and they are very small in file size.
>
> BUT the question was how people were storing and managing them. I use FontExplorer and they show in the fonts list as duplicates. Only Path shows that the file name is a number and a different suffix. In the list of fonts the icon is the same in both cases -- the icon for otf. Even when the actual file says ttf.
>
> FontExplorer X/Font Library/S/Swissa Piccola/Jeremia Adatte - SwissaPiccola.otf
> FontExplorer X/Font Library/S/SwissaPiccola/25F47A_0_0.ttf
>
> So I've already deleted some not realizing what they were. I can download them again from my account at MyFonts but I have to find a better way to organize and keep track of what I have.

I don't understand.

Why would you need to do anything w/ such fonts locally?

Upload them to a server in the appropriate place and w/ the appropriate permissions and leave them alone, save for accessing them by referring to them in your code.

[Bret Perry]

We are likewise only experimenting at this point. Some web fonts are
great, many are not. We like font font.com.

You might want to install web fonts locally to design in Dreamweaver or
InDesign etc. (though many developers would use a server).

I am not super-familiar with Font Explorer, but I thought one of its
features was having separate libraries to allow different versions of the
same font (e.g. one client uses Helvetica from 1998 and another client
uses Helvetica from 2007)

You should be able to load the two same-named fonts in different libraries
(or whatever FE calls them) and turn on and off as needed.

I use Font Agent Pro, and I can have both fonts in the different
libraries, I can tell Font Agent Pro not to ever auto-activate either of
those dup fonts and I just turn them on and off by hand as needed.

Supposedly Extensis Suitcase Fusion is adept at auto-activating specific
versions of the same font as needed.
I think it is Extensis that also offers a plugin for Photoshop and maybe
InDesign that allows you to use Web Fonts for web design without setting
up a local or remote server. I think you download and install Fusion trial
and get to keep those plugins when trial is done whether you buy or not.
(tho I don't like Suitcase because of bad experiences with much earlier
versions)

[Sharon Villines]

On May 16, 2013, at 3:30 PM, Bret Perry <BPe...@russreid.com> wrote:

> I am not super-familiar with Font Explorer, but I thought one of its
> features was having separate libraries to allow different versions of the
> same font (e.g. one client uses Helvetica from 1998 and another client
> uses Helvetica from 2007)

The problem is that in the font list, the web-font doesn't have a different name. Any other identification is secondary to the name of the font. I can make all kinds of labels for it and add it to any sets I want but unless I look in another field for the label, "Annabel" looks the same as "Annabel". What I've decided to do is not store them in FontExplorer Pro at all since I wouldn't be opening and using them for a print file. i made a separate folder in the FontExplorer library folder called WebFonts and put them all there.

And I won't be buying more because there is no guarantee I can use them. They are too large, apparently, to be downloaded quickly.

I'll have to stick with Google fonts until MyFonts catches up and stops selling web fonts that can't be used.

Sharon
----
Sharon Villines
"Reality is something you rise above." Liza Minnelli